2006
DOI: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2006.tb00414.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Test Interpretation Style and Favorability in the Counseling Process

Abstract: Two styles of test interpretation (TI), delivered and interactive, were manipulated in a 1‐session counseling interview. The favorability of the interpretations (i.e., positive only and mixed) was also manipulated. After completing a well‐known personality test, 46 participants completed the TI session. Participants' thoughts and perceptions of their sessions and counselors did not differ across the 4 experimental conditions. However, their TI acceptance and helpfulness ratings did differ. Implications for TI … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We used treatment validity check and session helpfulness items similar to those developed by Hanson and Claiborn (2006). The session helpfulness question was modified to a 9-point scale following Elliott’s (1985) rating method.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used treatment validity check and session helpfulness items similar to those developed by Hanson and Claiborn (2006). The session helpfulness question was modified to a 9-point scale following Elliott’s (1985) rating method.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As researchers gain insight into the change process, they will be better positioned to explain variances in observed effect sizes across studies. A number of variables warrant special empirical attention in this regard-variables including the "dose," or amount of test feedback given; the discrepancy of the results from clients' self-perceptions; the favorability, or valence, of the results (Finn, 1996;Hanson & Claiborn, 2006); and the types of tests used (e.g., objective, projective, neuropsychological). Special empirical attention should also be given to individual difference variables, in-cluding age, ethnicity (e.g., African American and American Indian, in particular), and gender, as well as specific Axis I and II disorders as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.…”
Section: Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Individual study effect sizes are presented in dark gray, whereas aggregate effect sizes are reported in light gray. a Hanson and Claiborn's (2006) research design included two independent variable levels and thus generated two independent effect sizes.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Suffice it to say, we are familiar with the Barnum effect (cf. Claiborn & Hanson, 1999; Hanson & Claiborn, 2006) and considered it a priori, as part of our inclusion–exclusion criteria. Although it may relate to PATI, in terms of research questions, designs, independent and dependent variables, methods/procedures, and study foci (and perhaps even underlying change mechanisms), it does not necessarily relate to our meta-analysis.…”
Section: Barnum and Beyondmentioning
confidence: 99%